After around a month an a half of the draft being suspended, I have decided to pursue a redraft of the "Protecting Freshwater from Manufacturing" bill, a proposal that originally passed quorum but was defeated 11,215 votes to 8,341. I hope to make it more agreeable with the members of the World Assembly, but still as a strong bill that deters and prevents the over-consumption and pollution of freshwater. Although originally written with the manufacturing sector in mind, I hope to additionally widen its horizon and affect more areas of the business sector.

Aware that clean, safe drinking water in many nations of the World Assembly is progressively becoming more scarce as it is lost to pollution, greater demands by the growing population, and unsustainable consumption;

Acknowledging that, even today, the World Assembly bears witness to the devastating effects of freshwater shortages in some struggling nations within its hallowed halls;

Recognizing the tragic effects water shortages have on the public welfare of member nations afflicted with this issue such as civilians needing to resort to drinking contaminated water;

Further recognizing the severe effects water shortages have on nations' economies, with this issue crippling agriculture, spurring greater unrest within the nation, and increasing the migration of large populations;

Observing that the business sector, especially agriculture, is one of the greatest contributors to freshwater pollution and over-consumption in many member nations;

Convinced that leaving the issue of freshwater shortages unaddressed would exacerbate current water shortages in some member nations, and have undoubtedly tragic consequences to others in the near future;

Desiring to address this issue through a series of proposed actions member nations are strongly advised to take, and through the work and dedication of the Joint Water Resources Management Panel;

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "Greywater" as water that can be safely used for irrigation, cooling off factory equipment, and other purposes not involving public consumption;

2. Strongly urges member nations to monitor and measure their freshwater supply (based on estimates) annually in order to observe and determine trends in the condition of the water, and to take any further actions, if necessary, in improving the management of the freshwater supply with this information to avoid extensive contamination and shortages;

3. Encourages member nations to reduce businesses’ excessive use and pollution of fresh water with appropriate legislative action including:

Establishing a limit on the annual freshwater footprint of certain industries;

Instituting regular inspections of water pipelines of manufacturing companies, especially of water plants, to find and prevent the use of faulty or corroded piping, contamination of water, or the spillage of massive volumes of water;

4. Obligates member nations to educate the public on the causes and effects of water shortages, proper water usage, and practical methods of water conservation;

5. Recommends that member nations practice the following methods to effectively prevent water shortages:

Creating irrigated agricultural basins, man-made depressions in the land engineered to collect run-off, to improve agricultural water productivity and irrigation efficiency;

Collecting and recycling rainwater;

Processing runoff and sewage into greywater;

6. Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply;

7. Extends the authority of the Joint Water Resources Management Panel to include:

Sending aid to member nations suffering from an environmental disaster threatening their freshwater and drinking supply at the nation’s request;

Providing member nations the tools they need to monitor freshwater resources, and finance projects that aim to reduce the over-consumption or contamination and pollution of freshwater in member nations that lack the fiscal resources to manage the projects themselves upon the nation’s request;

Educating farmers and the agricultural industry on how to effectively reduce water use in agriculture, teaching them topics including the precise use of irrigation and how to enhance the water retention of soil, at the nation's request;

Assisting in the management of the freshwater supply of member nations in dire circumstances where the national freshwater and drinking supply is under a very real, severe threat wherein the public health is being harmed.

Aware that clean, safe drinking water in many nations of the World Assembly is progressively becoming more scarce as it is lost to pollution, greater demands by the growing population, and unsustainable consumption;

Acknowledging that, even today, the World Assembly bears witness to the devastating effects of freshwater shortages in some struggling nations in its hallowed halls;

Recognizing that the business sector (especially agriculture and manufacturing) is one of biggest contributors of freshwater pollution and over consumption in many member nations;

Convinced that leaving the issue unaddressed would have undoubtedly tragic consequences to other member nations in the future, and exacerbate those currently afflicted by freshwater shortages;

Desiring to address this problem through a series of proposed steps member nations could take as precautions, and through the work and dedication of the Joint Water Resources Management Panel;

Hereby:

1. Strongly urges member nations to monitor and measure their freshwater supply based off of estimates annually in order to observe and determine trends in how much freshwater is being consumed, reserved, and contaminated, and to take any further actions, if necessary, in improving methods of managing their freshwater supply with these statistics;

2. Encourages member nations to create legislation and policy that limit the consumption of freshwater by civilians and the business sector;

3. Obligates member nations to educate the public on water usage and how to conserve water rather than waste it;

4. Recommends that member nations practice the following methods to effectively prevent water shortages:

Process runoff and sewage into greywater, water that can be safely used for irrigation, cooling off factory equipment, and other uses where it will not be used for public consumption;

Use technology related to water conservation including water purifiers and desalination pumps;

5. Prohibits the intentional disposal of hazardous industrial waste by the business sector into bodies of freshwater and the public drinking water;

6. Extends the authority of the Joint Water Resources Management Panel to:

Aid member nations suffering from an environmental disaster threatening their freshwater supply for reparations and clean-up at the nation’s request;

Set limits on and manage the freshwater supply of member nations in dire circumstances where the national freshwater supply is under a very real, severe threat;

Finance projects that aim to reduce the overconsumption or pollution of freshwater, or purify and clean freshwater resources in member nations that lack the ability to organize and pay for the projects themselves upon the nation’s request;

Educate farmers on how to effectively reduce water use in agriculture, teaching them topics including the precision use of irrigation and how to enhance the water retention of soil.

Last edited by Ransium on Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:44 am, edited 27 times in total.

"There is an erroneous space before the semicolon in the convinced line."

A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seatsKenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issuesLocated in Europe and border France to the right and Spain belowNS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks

Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutionsThis is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracyHowever we do have a WA mission and often participate in draftingCurrent ambassador: James Lewitt

"I would end clause 6d with a full stop as it is the last clause of the proposal."

A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seatsKenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issuesLocated in Europe and border France to the right and Spain belowNS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks

Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutionsThis is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracyHowever we do have a WA mission and often participate in draftingCurrent ambassador: James Lewitt

Kenmoria wrote:"I would end clause 6d with a full stop as it is the last clause of the proposal."

Thanks for pointing that out. I've replaced the semicolon with a period.By the way, as it stands, do you find this proposal adequate for the WA and would you personally support it?

(OOC: The proposal as it stands has no glaring issues that I can spot at the moment. However, the proposal hasn't been drafted for enough time to say for sure, and shouldn't be submitted at the moment. If it were to reach WA-wide vote right now, I probably would support it OOC, but IC might take some thought because the Kenmorian parliament doesn't support the environment much.)

A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seatsKenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issuesLocated in Europe and border France to the right and Spain belowNS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks

Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutionsThis is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracyHowever we do have a WA mission and often participate in draftingCurrent ambassador: James Lewitt

2. Encourages member nations to create legislation and policy that limit the consumption of freshwater by civilians and the business sector;

Water rationing? Not a good plan.

Why not just mandate that all nations reduce their population to a point that is sustainable by their current water resources? fewer people, fewer demand on the water supply. And we all know businesses only want profits, and will steal the water, so just outlaw businesses or have the government take them over 'For the People'.Outlaw flush toilets and mandate outhouses for everybody. Prohibit private wells as the government cannot monitor them, and mandate they use municipal water sources regardless of how far from them they are or how much it would cost. Those rural rubes should live closer to cities if they want waters, right? Institute policies of bi-weekly bathing only. A little smelliness is worth saving the water, I would think.Firefighting uses too much fresh water. Only use seawater, pipe it in if needed, even several hundred or thousands of kilometers. Make people pay for fighting their fires. The extra cost will make people more aware of fire safety and water wastage.And why only "civilians" and "The Business Sector"? Is government exempt from saving water? Politicians, bureaucrats and military get a free pass to however much they want?

I am a grumpy old man. Your first mistake was believing I care about your opinion. Get off my lawn.

I don't support this proposal due to some of the reasons which GH elaborates upon above. However it is, I prefer a market solution to the problem. Both on the supply and demand sides. If you don't have water, get more. You do that by raising prices or contracting parties to get it (which also involves raising prices, just not on an open market). Even if you have a state-owned monopoly providing the water, you still are still increasing prices when procuring more supplies, they are just shadow prices.

If you're using too much water, raise prices so people use less. The fact of the matter is that a small proportion of the total population uses most of the water for frivolous purposes, in practically all areas where there exist shortages. Raising prices punishes those people. The impact on poor people is minimal at best, and even if it were large, can easily be solved using a graduated pricing scheme.

Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue May 01, 2018 11:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

So you would like me to remove or revise one encouraging clause...? I would rather you be more direct in your criticism than cover a valid suggestion over a mountain of hyperbole and satire. Regardless, I appreciate the suggestion and I'll decide whether to remove or edit this clause in the next draft.

So you would like me to remove or revise one encouraging clause...? I would rather you be more direct in your criticism than cover a valid suggestion over a mountain of hyperbole and satire. Regardless, I appreciate the suggestion and I'll decide whether to remove or edit this clause in the next draft.

I was pointing out consequences to you. Intent is not reality. Intent is easily subverted. Consequences are what matter.

(And trust me, you do not want Me to be direct.)

Last edited by Grays Harbor on Tue May 01, 2018 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am a grumpy old man. Your first mistake was believing I care about your opinion. Get off my lawn.

Zone 71 wrote:So you would like me to remove or revise one encouraging clause...? I would rather you be more direct in your criticism than cover a valid suggestion over a mountain of hyperbole and satire. Regardless, I appreciate the suggestion and I'll decide whether to remove or edit this clause in the next draft.

I was pointing out consequences to you. Intent is not reality. Intent is easily subverted. Consequences are what matter.

(And trust me, you do not want Me to be direct.)

Alright then...

Edit: While I highly doubt that national governments will outlaw private businesses and the free market because of one encouraging clause, I will heavily revise it to make it less vague and focus on specific types of legislation a nation can effectively reduce the over consumption of water by businesses.

Last edited by Zone 71 on Tue May 01, 2018 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't support this proposal due to some of the reasons which GH elaborates upon above. However it is, I prefer a market solution to the problem. Both on the supply and demand sides. If you don't have water, get more. You do that by raising prices or contracting parties to get it (which also involves raising prices, just not on an open market). Even if you have a state-owned monopoly providing the water, you still are still increasing prices when procuring more supplies, they are just shadow prices.

If you're using too much water, raise prices so people use less. The fact of the matter is that a small proportion of the total population uses most of the water for frivolous purposes, in practically all areas where there exist shortages. Raising prices punishes those people. The impact on poor people is minimal at best, and even if it were large, can easily be solved using a graduated pricing scheme.

I don't believe relying on the free market alone is an effective way to deal with this issue. You're essentially saying that, if an industry sees some sort of problem like a shortage of water, they can raise the price of water so that people will buy water in lesser quantities, and that will somehow fix the issue. But that would mean the government would allow industries to pollute and consume and unsustainable amount of water until there is a crisis where water is far more unavailable than it would normally be, and while I agree that, in this situation, businesses would likely raise prices to meet the supply of water, you would also have to assume that somehow, the government and and industries' source of water will somehow reappear and be safe for usage and consumption, rather than be lost to the reckless over consumption and pollution of businesses and people.

Zone 71 wrote:I don't believe relying on the free market alone is an effective way to deal with this issue. You're essentially saying that, (1) if an industry sees some sort of problem like a shortage of water, they can raise the price of water so that people will buy water in lesser quantities, (2)and that will somehow fix the issue. But that would mean the government would (3) allow industries to pollute and consume and unsustainable amount of water until there is a crisis where water is far more unavailable than it would normally be, and while I agree that, in this situation, businesses would likely raise prices to meet the supply of water, you would also have to assume that somehow, the government and and industries' source of water will somehow (4) reappear and be safe for usage and consumption, rather than be lost to the reckless over consumption and pollution of businesses and people.

(Bolded areas are edited in.) Okay. A few issues. First, contrary to popular belief, businesses with accurate expectations about the future can set prices in the long run. Now, in cases with water, this is not hard to estimate. Water usage doesn't vary all that much year from year to year because people, businesses, etc. are going to consume a relatively unchanging amount of water. It's effectively constant with a scalar and a positive or negative growth coefficient. Water demand isn't something which companies cannot plan around. So prices are going to be relatively well set in the long run. About supply, see 4.

Second, of course it will fix the issue. This is how price mechanisms work. If the price goes up, people substitute away from water. And if the price goes up, profit-seeking firms provide more water. Even in a planned economy, this is how the mechanism works. As I said, in a planned economy, this would really just be a question of shadow prices. You have a shadow price of water acquisition. And you have a shadow price of water consumption. In both cases, raising the current shadow prices on both ends with lead to more water acquisition through expenditure to acquire it and less due to higher costs. Or if they fiat its lowering, then there is still a shadow price in where it would be (and which is significantly less shadowed because of reselling on the black market) lowering it.

Third, see my first response. Given prices are set correctly this simply won't happen. It's really a simple marginal cost question. Even if they are set incorrectly, the government can correct that issue by Pigouvian taxation. Even if the government is unwilling to do that, the government can cap and trade permits. Even if the government doesn't want to do that, this isn't a question of water usage in as a much as it is a question of pollution. The government can regulate pollution. In fact, the WA already does.

Fourth, insofar as you believe that the government has the information to predict water shortages in the future, you have to concede that water companies too will be able to see those predictions. Water companies seeing increased costs in the future increase prices now to pay for capital expenditure to resolve those crises in the future. A profit-seeking firm doesn't stick its head in the sand and say 'Oh well, I guess we are all going to resign, lose our jobs, and go bankrupt' because they refuse to make investments in future water supplies. And even if what you claim will happen (i.e. unsafe water), there are strong network externalities from integrated water supply. In practically all countries, the water mains will be owned by a monopolistic entity arising from those network externalities. That monopolistic entity has the power to regulate the quality of the water that flows its pipes. In most countries, that entity is also the state.

On the comparative, there are significantly better and more effective mechanisms to solve this problem. Fundamentally, this is a question of water demand and the fact that people (in real life, this is more realistically firms,) pay below-social-cost rates for water usage. There is no reason why we should prefer a suboptimal solution.

Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue May 01, 2018 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:(Bolded areas are edited in.) Okay. A few issues. First, contrary to popular belief, businesses with accurate expectations about the future can set prices in the long run. Now, in cases with water, this is not hard to estimate. Water usage doesn't vary all that much year from year to year because people, businesses, etc. are going to consume a relatively unchanging amount of water. It's effectively constant with a scalar and a positive or negative growth coefficient. Water demand isn't something which companies cannot plan around. So prices are going to be relatively well set in the long run. About supply, see 4.

Second, of course it will fix the issue. This is how price mechanisms work. If the price goes up, people substitute away from water. And if the price goes up, profit-seeking firms provide more water. Even in a planned economy, this is how the mechanism works. As I said, in a planned economy, this would really just be a question of shadow prices. You have a shadow price of water acquisition. And you have a shadow price of water consumption. In both cases, raising the current shadow prices on both ends with lead to more water acquisition through expenditure to acquire it and less due to higher costs. Or if they fiat its lowering, then there is still a shadow price in where it would be (and which is significantly less shadowed because of reselling on the black market) lowering it.

Third, see my first response. Given prices are set correctly this simply won't happen. It's really a simple marginal cost question. Even if they are set incorrectly, the government can correct that issue by Pigouvian taxation. Even if the government is unwilling to do that, the government can cap and trade permits. Even if the government doesn't want to do that, this isn't a question of water usage in as a much as it is a question of pollution. The government can regulate pollution. In fact, the WA already does.

Fourth, insofar as you believe that the government has the information to predict water shortages in the future, you have to concede that water companies too will be able to see those predictions. Water companies seeing increased costs in the future increase prices now to pay for capital expenditure to resolve those crises in the future. A profit-seeking firm doesn't stick its head in the sand and say 'Oh well, I guess we are all going to resign, lose our jobs, and go bankrupt' because they refuse to make investments in future water supplies. And even if what you claim will happen (i.e. unsafe water), there are strong network externalities from integrated water supply. In practically all countries, the water mains will be owned by a monopolistic entity arising from those network externalities. That monopolistic entity has the power to regulate the quality of the water that flows its pipes. In most countries, that entity is also the state.

On the comparative, there are significantly better and more effective mechanisms to solve this problem. Fundamentally, this is a question of water demand and the fact that people (in real life, this is more realistically firms,) pay below-social-cost rates for water usage. There is no reason why we should prefer a suboptimal solution.

Again, I understand your position on this, but I believe that you cannot solely rely on a free market economy to somehow prevent freshwater shortages and end this crisis. If anything, the scarcity of water is, in great part, a consequence of the unregulated activities of corporations alone, with massive amounts of waste deposition in bodies of water due in part to the industrial sector, and the over consumption of water by the manufacturing and agricultural sector. And to say that we should completely disregard the likely outcome of simply ignoring our environment and leaving private businesses to hopefully not lead us into a water crisis is downright negligent and imprudent.

I am a firm supporter of the free market economy, but I believe there is more that needs to be done to ensure the security of member nations' water supply, and uphold the welfare and health of nations' peoples. If the private business sector's prudence and concern for the national water supply were all it took to prevent a water shortage, we would not see so many fellow member nations within these hallowed halls struggling under a devastating water crisis. With all due respect, this issue is much greater than a simple supply-and-demand solution, as factors like pollution, global warming, the availability of snowpack, and the volume of water currently contained in reserves plays a large role in the issue of water shortages - factors which are often unpredictable and outside of the judgement and authority of private businesses.

I also find it unwise to simply propose that the free market could remedy this crisis, especially recognizing the diverse membership within the World Assembly, including nations run by socialist and communist economic systems. Because I find water shortages and the pollution and over consumption of water to be an international issue, I find it terribly insufficient to completely ignore member nations whose economies are less laissez-faire and capitalist, and would instead prefer solutions to this issue that member nations of all economic systems can use to prevent water shortages.

Your entire first paragraph is describing the effects of prices on water which are set primarily by governments being too low. Why do corporations use lots of water? Oh, it's because they either are not metered or because the prices on water are too low. The scarcity of water is a result of a failure of public policy in resolving a negative consumption externality. The most efficient way to correct that externality is simply to raise the price.

You talk about water crises. In the real world, most of those water prices are caused by this exact price mechanism. I would lay government a significantly larger portion of the blame because it gets bought out by corporate interests which artificially lower prices to certain (coincidentally always the ones controlling the water system) consumers. Instead of a profit-seeking provider, we see state capture and the state becomes a mechanism for government to reward its supporters.

Where do we see this? We see it in Namibia,

Currently water tariffs (bulk and end-use) in Namibia can best be described as being determined on an ad hoc basis . . . The two main Ministries (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry and Ministry of Local Government and Housing and Rural Development) involved have an oversight function but are basing tariff approvals primarily on political or uninformed decisions. [1]

We see it in India,

The huge expenditures incurred in this sector are not going towards real investments that would improve the performance of the sector. In all the sub-sectors more than 80% of the expenditure is being spent on salaries and establishment charges. Despite the fact that the water sector is in the hands of the government (except for groundwater), equity goals are not achieved. An urban and rich bias is prevalent as far as access to water and public distribution of water is concerned. As a result, the poor do not enjoy water subsidies that are meant for them. [2]

Before the ongoing civil war, we saw it in Syria,

The scarcity in water resources which Syria faces is far from a ‘natural’ characteristic of the country's limited resources and growing population. Rather, much of that scarcity is attributable to the government's promotion of the irrigated agriculture sector . . .

If water scarcity is not a problem inherent to the limited natural resources of the country, but rather a situation produced by the Syrian government's promotion of irrigated agriculture, this begs the question of why the government is motivated to pursue these policies. What factors have led the government to, in effect, generate water scarcity? While scarcity is not the government's ultimate goal, it is an outcome of the government's policy choice to strive for food self-sufficiency and promote high water-demanding cotton for export. In this policy, the paradox of the Syrian state is manifest: a nation-state with a narrowly defined nationalist agenda of security (in food and other respects) but at the same time an active participant in the world market (exporting cotton and other products). [3]

I don't care whether it is or isn't an international issue. Even if it isn't an international issue, I will still consider it. I think I posted something explaining my position vis-à-vis the 'international issue' question some time ago: unless an alternative mechanism can be provided that works on all states, national sovereignty simply doesn't weigh out. Fundamentally, I see this as a policy issue. There are many actions you can mandate via government action without having to say 'no regulation at all'. See my third response with the even-if chain. Oh, and even if nations have a planned economy, they still have prices.

[1] Matros-Goreses, A. & Fanceys, R., 2008. The price-setting process and a potential role for economic regulation in a water scarce developing country. Water Science & Technology, pp. 347-354.

So you're trying to substantiate the claim that the free market is a solution to water scarcity by arguing that the government, persuaded by corporate interests brought on by the free market, has exacerbated the growing water scarcity worldwide?

Zone 71 wrote:So you're trying to substantiate the claim that the free market is a solution to water scarcity by arguing that the government, persuaded by corporate interests brought on by the free market, has exacerbated the growing water scarcity worldwide?

It doesn't seem to me that you understand that corporations as a whole are not a monolith. I put the blame on this question at narrow interests dominating the distributive mechanism. In a distributive structure under competition, it becomes impossible for that to happen. If you don't serve some customers, then other people will, and they will reap the rewards for doing so. It is only in the case where there can be established an extractive monopoly with considerable entry-prevention power that such an issue can emerge.

Furthermore, there are considerable other mechanisms by which the state can be co-opted. By politicians attempting to reward their cronies is the most famous example. Certainly, in developing countries, we hear about tribal factions using the state as little more than a mechanism to distribute resources to their electoral coalition. This is endemic in developing democracies and weak political institutions writ large.

In the more well-studied context of India, we also see over-investment in tertiary education and under-investment in primary education arising from the organised educated constituencies from which most regional and national governments emerge. And similarly, there is considerable self-serving amongst the bureaucracy, which grants to itself privileges and resources that could be better put to social use. What a surprise it is that bureaucrats from the upper-middle classes route the state's educational resources, electricity, and other services to protect their core whilst leaving the rural hinterland underserved, undereducated, and unbuilt?

State capture is a fundamental problem in development. It isn't something you can just fiat away or pretend does not exist. It is eminently realistic to take into consideration its effects. If you do not, I will repeal your resolution, should it pass.

Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue May 01, 2018 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Each nation may determine the following for itself, provided all other provisions of this act are met:i) Methods for production and distribution of water,ii) Processes and chemicals used for purification of water,iii) Usage of chemical additives for public health, andiv) Water usage, conservation, and rationing regulations.

Last edited by Aclion on Tue May 01, 2018 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Each nation may determine the following for itself, provided all other provisions of this act are met:i) Methods for production and distribution of water,ii) Processes and chemicals used for purification of water,iii) Usage of chemical additives for public health, andiv) Water usage, conservation, and rationing regulations.

The Clean Water act was made with, what I believe, the intention to uphold a certain standard of health and accessibility of fresh drinking water, and while my proposal similarly aims to secure and protect fresh water, it does so through the establishment of preventative measures against water shortages, educating the public and the agricultural sector on this issue, and by emphasizing the need to contain and use water more efficiently.

Last edited by Kenmoria on Tue May 01, 2018 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seatsKenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issuesLocated in Europe and border France to the right and Spain belowNS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks

Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutionsThis is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracyHowever we do have a WA mission and often participate in draftingCurrent ambassador: James Lewitt